Safety (8) Safety Rule Tracking Draft Effective Date Proponent GR 801.0 210-17 1 12/1/2018 Matty O'Rourke GR 837.0 346-17 2 12/1/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action USHJA EQ 108 (192-17), JP 103 (171-17), HU 157 (174-17), GR 844 (214-17) GR 839.6 268-17 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 1 12/1/2018 USEF Officers GR 843.7 272-17 2 12/1/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Veterinary GR 1302.0 041-17 2 12/1/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action Steve Sarafin GR 1302.2 266-17 2 12/1/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 2: Needs Action USHJA GR 1316.4 211-17 1 12/1/2018 Matty O'Rourke AL 232.0 201-17 1 4/1/2018 Andalusian/Lusitano Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM Page 1 of 22
GR801 Tracking #210-17 Draft #1 Active Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 12/1/2018 8/31/2017 GR801 Dress [CHAPTER 8-A ATTIRE AND EQUIPMENT] Proposed Change 2. It is compulsory for all persons at Federation licensed hunter, jumper or hunter/jumper competitions when mounted anywhere on the competition grounds, to wear properly fastened protective headgear which meets or exceeds ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)/SEI (Safety Equipment Institute) standards for equestrian use and carries the SEI tag. It must be properly fitted with harness secured and tight enough so it cannot be pulled over the chin or allowing the helmet to come off without unfastening the harness. Exception: In Hunter or Jumper classes, adults may be allowed to remove their headgear while accepting prizes and during the playing of the National Anthem only; they must refasten their headgear prior to the lap of honor. It is compulsory for riders in Paso Fino classes, both open and breed restricted including Hunter Hack, where jumping is required and when jumping anywhere on the competition grounds to wear properly fastened protective headgear which meets or exceeds ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)/SEI (Safety Equipment Institute) standards for equestrian use and carries the SEI tag. It must be properly fitted with harness secured and tight enough so it cannot be pulled over the chin or allowing the helmet to come off without unfastening the harness. A Show Committee must bar riders without properly fitted protective headgear or hair not conforming to the rules from entering the ring for classes in which protective headgear is required and may bar any entry or person from entering the ring if not suitably presented to appear before an audience. 3. Except as may otherwise be mandated by local law, all sub-junior exhibitors in the Paso Fino division, while riding or driving or while in the driving cart anywhere on the competition grounds, must wear properly fitting protective headgear which meets or exceeds ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)/SEI (Safety Equipment Institute) standards for equestrian use and carries the SEI tag. Harness must be secured and properly fitted and tight enough so it cannot be pulled over the chin or allowing the helmet to come off without unfastening the harness. Any rider violating this rule at any time must immediately be prohibited from further riding until such headgear is properly in place. For all exhibitors competing in the hunter, jumper, or hunter seat equitation section, if a rider s chin strap becomes unfastened, the rider may stop, re-fasten the chin strap and continue his/her round without penalty or elimination. A judge may, but is not required to stop a rider and ask them to refasten a chin strap which has become unfastened, again without penalty to the rider. Members of the Armed Services or the Police may wear the Service Dress Uniform. 8. The Federation makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, about any protective headgear, and cautions riders that death or serious injury may result despite wearing such headgear as all equestrian sports involve inherent dangerous risk and as no helmet can protect against all foreseeable injuries but a properly fitted and current helmet is required. 9. Helmets may not be more than 4 years old, verified by the manufacturer date in the helmet. Proponent Details Matty O'Rourke Contact Information Matty O'Rourke p.1@mac.com Rule Change Intent Wearing hair up and in a helmet limits the effectiveness of the helmet and can lead to greater injury than a helmet properly fitted. In no other sport or profession where a helmet is worn, do people wear their hair up in their helmet. Not in any form of motor racing, bicycle racing, snow sports, ice hockey, football, lacrosse, extreme sports, amateur boxing, fighter pilots, Armed Forces, Police or Fire Fighters. Hair is worn in a bun below the helmet as in Dressage, the Armed Forces and Police. In sports where there is danger of fire, hair is worn loose or in a ponytail under the balaclava and under the uniform. This can be a mandate that is phased in, similar to when harnesses became required on helmets. All juniors must comply, amateurs and professionals by a certain date to be determined. Though there is backlash against jumper riders with loose, unkempt hair, there can be a middle ground with the traditional hunters and equitation choosing a bun or a neatly braided pony tail with no adornments other than a suitable hairnet as seen in dressage. Helmets are routinely worn with chin straps too loose which defeat the purpose of wearing the helmet. Judges, stewards and all officials should be empowered to check the strap and require the rider to make an adjustment. The Federal Government also requires that in states that require helmets for Motorcyclists to be no more than 5 years old, verified by the DOT sticker on the helmet. Helmets can appear fine on the outside but sweat, hair products, extreme temperatures, all serve to continually compromise a helmet over time and is not considered effective after 5 years of normal wear. In a sport where some riders and trainers can wear a helmet for 12 hours a day, that amount of wear is well beyond "normal." Instituting a helmet date check is similar to checking the length of a dressage whip, horse boots, blood rule or jog for soundness. A helmet check for fit and/or date of manufacture can be done concurrently with a jog for soundness, model class, boot check, etc. In motor racing a car finishing on the podium gets a quick check to make sure the car was legal; top three competitors can be required to show their helmet or get eliminated from class and points and money lost if the helmet or hair is non compliant. Linked Rules Web: Helmet Fit Committee Actions Comments Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 801.0 Tracking #210-17 Page 2 of 22
Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/02/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/15/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/08/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/04/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/28/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/06/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/13/2017 American Saddlebred Draft 1: Difficult to enforce Andalusian/Lusitano Draft 1: Helmets last longer than four years when taken care of properly and have not been damaged. It would be difficult for competition stewards to check each exhibitor helmet especially at larger licensed competitions. Arabian Draft 1: This rule change would be difficult to enforce. Who would enforce the rule at the competition? What if the tag is no longer in the helmet? Breeds/Disciplines Carriage Pleasure Driving Draft 1: Committee feels this rule change is unenforceable. Connemara Draft 1: There are currently no rules about hair being in a helmet as referred to in this proposal. While this may be a well meant idea, it is not really enforceable. Council - Admin & Finance Draft 1: Goes against current standards for replacing helmets. Would be difficult to enforce. Council - Intl Discipline Draft 1: Too difficult to enforce. It is not the purpose of the USEF to dictate and police the correct fit of helmets. Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Dressage Draft 1: Would be difficult to enforce. Many helmets can be used over four years per manufacturer based on amount of uses, etc. Driving Draft 1: Strongly oppose these changes for many reasons: cannot be enforced, puts potential legal obligation on Officials & the Federation, not clear to who is responsible in these situations, should be left for the Organizer s to handle (not the Federation), cannot clearly define properly fitted in a general sense across disciplines. Endurance English Pleasure Eventing Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Commtitee does not recommend approval as there are concerns about the administration of the rule. Friesian Draft 1: It should be up to parents, trainers and individuals to ensure helmets are up to standard. Too much work for competition management and stewards. Governance Hackney Draft 1: This would be too difficult to monitor and enforce Jumper Draft 1: JSC feels we should focus on better education regarding concussions and helmet safety. Licensed Officials Draft 1: This rule is unenforceable by competition management and would be extremely difficult to monitor. Morgan Draft 1: This rule change would be difficult to enforce. There is not enough time for Stewards/TDs to check each helmet and the manufacturer date is not indicative of the helmets condition National Hunter Committee Draft 1: This rule is unenforceable. National Show Horse Draft 1: This rule would be difficult to enforce and too many factors come into play regarding proper fit and age of helmets. Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 801.0 Tracking #210-17 Page 3 of 22
Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/30/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/01/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/29/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/25/2017 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Paso Fino Draft 1: It would be difficult to verify helmet age and would burden competition management to enforce this rule. Reining Roadster Draft 1: Too difficult to monitor and enforce. Saddle Seat Eq Draft 1: Helmets can be used longer that the noted 4 years and who will monitor if the helmet fits properly. This rule would be too difficult to enforce. Safety Draft 1: While the committee is in support of a rule enforcing the proper fit of helmets, it cannot approve this rule as written with the restriction of helmets over 4 years old and mandate on wearing hair outside of the helmet. There is research that has found helmets are effective for years with proper care. Additionally, there is ongoing debate and research regarding the best way to wear hair with a helmet. Shetland Draft 1: This rule change would be difficult to enforce and verify helmet age. At competitions, who will check each helmet? This could cause hardship to competition management especially at competitions with a high number of exhibitors. Steward-Technical Delegate Committee Draft 1: This rule is unenforceable by competition management and would be extremely difficult to monitor. USHJA Draft 1: Proper helmet fit is already addressed within the current rule and the responsibility for ensuring proper fit rests with the individual, not the Federation. Vaulting Welsh Draft 1: This rule is a great concept, but we feel it will be rather difficult to enforce. Who will enforce this rule at each competition - i.e. check each individual helmet & fit? This will potentially cause a hardship on those who may not ride often to have to purchase a helmet every four years, as well as the fact that the helmet may already be a year old when it is shipped to a store. The manufacture date does not indicate the intensity of how a helmet has or has not been used. Western Committee Western Dressage Draft 1: The committee is okay with the language regarding the chinstrap but feels verifying the helmets age would be difficult to enforce. Who will check the fit and verify the age of the helmet? Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 801.0 Tracking #210-17 Page 4 of 22
GR837 Tracking #346-17 Draft #2 Amended Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 12/1/2018 12/15/2017 GR837 & GR844 Schooling [CHAPTER 8-E SCHOOLING] Proposed Change GR844 Poling Manual poling, or the use of offsets, is prohibited on competition grounds. 1. If a Licensed Competition allows manual poling and the relevant state laws do not prohibit such practices, it must be done in the designated schooling areas. Manual poling is prohibited for all horses competing in Jumper classes at Regular Competitions. Horses found to be in violation of these rules by the Competition Steward or other Federation official shall be eliminated/disqualified from competing within the upcoming 24-hour period and shall forfeit all entry fees for such competition. In addition after consultation between Competition Management, the Steward, or other official involved, and a senior judge in the Jumper division additional penalties including disqualification from the balance of the competition may be imposed. Exception: Eventing Division (see EV111.2); Jumpers (see JP103.1). 2. Single poles of bamboo only (not rattan or any other material) must be used, and may not be filled with sand or any other foreign substance. They may be taped to prevent splitting but they may not be wired, contain tacks or have a diameter of over 2 at the large end. Pole must be held by one person only, using either one or two hands. Pole shall not be supported by any other means (i.e., standard, cup, or ring fence). There shall be no ropes, lunge reins or any other devices attached to said poles. Exhibitors must furnish their own poles and no other object may be manually employed. 3. Manual poling is permitted at a vertical fence only but a bamboo pole may be used as an off-set bar at either a vertical or spread fence. An off-set bamboo pole is one which is placed at any height behind or in front of the elements of the obstacle itself instead of being placed in the same vertical plane or planes. The length of the off-set bamboo pole may not exceed the length of the obstacle s rails. No other form of off-set or false ground line (ground line cannot be behind the vertical plane of the face of the fence or more than 3 feet in front, any trotting rail or placement pole may not be less than 8 to fence) is permitted. The spread fence must be jumped in the right direction. 4. Violators will be automatically penalized by elimination of the horse involved from the class in which it is participating and the next succeeding class in which it is entered. If the violation occurs after the horse has completed its performance in a class or between classes, it will be eliminated from the next two succeeding classes in which it is entered. All such violations must be recorded in the Steward s Report and, if cruelty or abusive behavior is evident, it will be reviewed by the Hearing Committee for such action as may be deemed appropriate to the particular circumstances. GR839 Cruelty to and Abuse of a Horse 4. The following acts are included under the words Cruelty and Abuse but are not limited thereto: a. Excessive use of a whip on any horse in a stall, runway, schooling area, competition ring or elsewhere on the competition grounds, before or during a competition, by any person. Except in emergency situations, any striking of the horse s head (on the poll and forward of the poll) with the whip shall be deemed excessive. b. Rapping the legs of a horse with the butt end of a riding crop or other implement. c. Use of any substance to induce temporary heat. d. Manual poling with any object other than a bamboo pole. GR837 Hunter 1. Schooling areas for hunters must contain adequate hunter-type fences. A trotting fence, a vertical and an oxer are required. See also HU157. 2. It is recommended that separate schooling areas be provided for hunters. A separate schooling area and jumps should also be provided for ponies. 3. A supervisor of schooling must be appointed for the schooling area designated for hunters if the area is less than 20,000 sq. ft. in size or more than 500 horses are entered in the competition. 4. A Steward/schooling supervisor must be present in the schooling area during any Hunter class offering $10,000 or more in prize money. 5. The Steward/schooling supervisor s decision regarding schooling fences, or tack and equipment in the warm-up area is final. Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 837.0 Tracking #346-17 Page 5 of 22
Proponent Details USHJA Contact Information Leslie Mangan lkmangan@ushja.org Rule Change Intent This rule change proposal is linked to several other rule change proposals drafted to unify the schooling rules across the disciplines of jumper, hunter and hunter/jumping seat equitation. Additionally, this rule change will disallow poling and/or the use of offsets any time while on the competition grounds in the interest of horse welfare, to ensure safety, and for the overall benefit of the sport. Linked Rules EQ 108 (192-17), JP 103 (171-17), HU 157 (174-17), GR 844 (214-17) Web: Schooling Rules Comments Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/04/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 01/04/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/28/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/18/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/27/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/06/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/18/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/29/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/20/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/18/2017 Committee Actions Competition Management Council - Admin & Finance Council - Intl Discipline Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Jumper Licensed Officials Draft 1: Recommend that it is only necessary to require that a vertical and an oxer are provided. National Hunter Committee Safety Steward-Technical Delegate Committee Draft 1: Recommend that it is only necessary to require that a vertical and an oxer are provided. USHJA Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 837.0 Tracking #346-17 Page 6 of 22
GR839.6 Tracking #268-17 Draft #1 Active Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 12/1/2018 8/31/2017 Proposed Change GR839 Cruelty to and Abuse of a Horse [CHAPTER 8-F Welfare of the Horse] GR839 Cruelty to and Abuse of a Horse 6. Willfully Tolerating Cruelty to and Abuse of a Horse - It is a violation of this rule and Chapter 7 to know of cruelty to or abuse of a horse at a Licensed Competition but fail to report such misconduct. Reports must be made to the competition licensed officials or directly to the Federation. Proponent Details USEF Officers Contact Information Sonja Keating skeating@usef.org Rule Change Intent The protection and welfare of the horse is of the utmost importance to the Federation. Consistent and regular reporting of cruelty and abuse at Federation Licensed Competitions is vital to the continued protection of equine athletes. Linked Rules Comments Web: cruelty to and abuse of a horse Committee Actions Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/02/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/15/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017 American Saddlebred Draft 1: Too subjective to agree on what constitutes abuse and difficult to enforce. Committee felt this was an overreach by USE. Andalusian/Lusitano Draft 1: The intent of the rule is good; however, the committee feels this would be difficult to prove and enforce. Arabian Draft 1: The committee feels it would be difficult to prove and enforce and may lead to false complaints. Breeds/Disciplines Carriage Pleasure Driving Draft 1: The committee likes the concept of protecting the horse, but feels this rule change is unenforceable. Competition Management Draft 1: The committee agrees with the concept but does not believe it is enforceable Connemara Draft 1: We like the concept of the rule and the intent to protect the horse, but would like to see it not be at the cost of punishment for those not reporting. It seems to difficult to prove willfully tolerating, and each individual has differing ideas on what cruelty encompasses. With this rule is someone obligated to report someone they feel is willfully not reporting abuse by another individual? Council - Admin & Finance Council - Intl Discipline Draft 1: Too subjective. Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 839.6 Tracking #268-17 Page 7 of 22
Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 01/04/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/22/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/28/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/06/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/13/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Draft 1: The council had concerns about USEF's purview to deal with these matters. Suggestion to have a standard contract made for sales and only those such matters would be heard; rule needs to be reworked to include parameters. Dressage Driving Draft 1: While a good thought in theory, the DSC does NOT agree with adding a penalty for those willfully tolerating cruelty and not reporting. While reporting should definitely be encouraged, adding a penalty becomes complicated: who is responsible for penalizing, what criteria defines willfully tolerating cruelty (observing cruelty? Participating? Obeying their boss?) There are many layers which are not addressed within this rule. DSC suggests wording such as it is expected that members will report, without the penalty. Endurance English Pleasure Eventing Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee agrees in principle with the proposed change but are concerned with the practicality of using punishment at a means of enforcement. The Committee feels the reporting of abuse should be simplified. Friesian Draft 1: We like the concept but feel this is unenforceable and could affect judges. How would this effect judges officiating if someone complains of a horse being over shown and the judge did not report it? Governance Hackney Draft 1: Agrees with the concept but feels this would be difficult to monitor and enforce Hearing Committee Draft 1: The Committee agreed with the concept but felt the wording makes it hard to enforce. The Committee had concerns that it would be difficult to determine whether someone failing to report an abuse did so with intent. It would also be an easy rule to abuse with false accusations. The Committee found the current language to be too broad and had concerns whether legally we can place an obligation on such a broad group of people. The Committee also had concerns with the practicality of how often it could be found that someone knowingly failed to report an issue. The Committee recommends that the intent of this rule be changed to reflect a violation when a Licensed Official fails to properly report welfare issues, as an additional incentive for stewards/tds to report abuse. Jumper Draft 1: JSC agrees with the intent but who is at fault for not reporting? Reporting should be done by the Licensed Officials officiating at that competition. Morgan Draft 1: Agrees with the concept but feels this would be difficult to prove. How does someone know if an individual witnessed abuse or was just in the area where it happened? Would like a definition of willfully. National Hunter Committee Draft 1: The committee feels this rule will be difficult to enforce and has concerns about the interpretation of the word "willfully." National Show Horse Draft 1: We like the concept of the rule, but it would difficult to enforce. Paso Fino Reining Roadster Draft 1: Too difficult to monitor and enforce. Saddle Seat Eq Draft 1: Approve of the concept of this rule but would like a definition of "Willfully". This rule would be difficult to enforce. Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 839.6 Tracking #268-17 Page 8 of 22
Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/01/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/29/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/18/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Safety Draft 1: The committee approves this rule but notes that the enforceability of this rule is problematic. How will the Federation know that an individual knew of cruelty or abuse and failed to report? Shetland Steward-Technical Delegate Committee Draft 1: The Committee feels that although this proposal has good intentions, the term "willfully" could be interpreted in a variety of ways which could cause disagreement. Additionally, they feel that the rule is unenforceable. USHJA Vaulting Veterinary Welsh Draft 1: This rule is great in concept, and we approve of the intent. This rule as written does not seem enforceable. How will one determine "willfully", and how can an accuser provide enough proof the alleged abuse if the steward did not see it? Western Committee Draft 1: Difficult to monitor and enforce. Western Dressage Draft 1: We feel the intent is good, but it would be difficult to enforce. How will someone prove that another individual knew of cruelty or abuse and failed to report? Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 839.6 Tracking #268-17 Page 9 of 22
GR843.7 Tracking #272-17 Draft #2 Amended Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 12/1/2018 12/20/2017 Proposed Change GR843 - Mandatory Reporting and Cooperation of Horse/Pony Collapse [CHAPTER 8-F Welfare of the Horse] GR843 Mandatory Reporting and Cooperation of Horse/Pony Collapse This rule applies to collapses of horses/ponies. For purposes of this rule, a collapse is defined as a fall to the ground with no apparent cause at any time from when entries arrive at the venue until departure from the venue. Other falls are not considered to be a collapse and are defined in GR122 and specified division rules. Refer to GR1034.6 for reporting requirements for all other falls and accidents. 1. The trainer as defined in GR 404, or the owner if the trainer is unavailable, or the rider if the trainer and owner are both unavailable, shall notify the Steward/Technical Delegate as soon as possible but no later than three hours after such occurrence of any collapse of a horse or pony. When a collapse occurs outside of competition hours or before the competition begins, notification must occur as soon as possible but no later than three hours after the Steward/TD reports to the show or returns to duty. 2. The Steward/TD shall report to Competition Management and the Federation within one hour of notification of a collapse. 3. In addition to the duties set forth in GR 1034.3, the Steward/TD shall file an Accident/Injury/Equine Collapse Report Form or Equine Fatality Report Form with the Federation within 24 hours of notification, except in exceptional circumstances such as no internet access at the venue. 4. The Federation, at its expense, may appoint a veterinarian to inspect the horse or pony that has collapsed and provide a full report to the Federation. Refusal to submit an animal for examination by an authorized veterinarian after due notification shall constitute a violation of this rule. 5. Any horse or pony that collapses at a licensed or endorsed competition is subject to drug and medication testing in accordance with Chapter 4 of these rules. In the absence of a Federation testing veterinarian, a veterinarian appointed under paragraph 4 (above) or the official competition veterinarian is authorized to collect and submit fluid samples in accordance with these rules. 6. The rider, owner, and trainer as defined in GR 404 shall cooperate with the Federation as to any investigation it undertakes with respect to a collapse or death of a horse/pony. This includes providing information requested by the Federation within 10 days of the request. 7. Any horse/pony that collapses is prohibited from competing for 72 hours after said collapse. Exception: Upon examination by a veterinarian and submission of a statement by the veterinarian certifying the horse/pony s fitness to compete, a horse/pony that collapses is permitted to return to competition 24 hours after said collapse. Proponent Details Veterinary Contact Information Stephen Schumacher sschumacher@usef.org Rule Change Intent Currently, there are no rules governing the return to competition of a horse or pony that collapses. It is in the best interest of horses/ponies to not return to competition for the 24 hour period following the collapse. Linked Rules Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/27/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/02/2017 Committee Actions American Saddlebred Andalusian/Lusitano Web: Horse/Pony Collapse Comments Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 843.7 Tracking #272-17 Page 10 of 22
Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/15/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/25/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 01/04/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/07/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/28/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 01/08/2018 Arabian Draft 1: The committee approves of the rule and intent, but would like to see an additional vet exam prior to returning to play. Breeds/Disciplines Carriage Pleasure Driving Draft 1: We approve of this rule and concept, but would like an additional vet check prior to returning to competition. Like language to include minimum 24 hours Competition Management Draft 1: The committee feels the language needs some further clarification and additional language requiring a vet check. Connemara Draft 1: We approve this rule and concept, but would also like to see language that includes a veterinary exam and approval for the horse/pony to return to play. Council - Admin & Finance Council - Intl Discipline Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Dressage Draft 1: Recommend language for a vet exam versus the 24 hours. Also recommend that proponents of tracking #272 and #271 work together for one rule change proposal. Driving Endurance English Pleasure Eventing Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee recommend that a request be made to combine tracking #'s 271-17 & 272-17. Friesian Draft 1: Would like to see an additional vet check prior to returning to competition. Governance Hackney Jumper Draft 1: JSC approves but thinks stronger language could be included to require the official competition vet to exam the horse prior to returning to play and this only after a minimum of 24 hrs. Morgan Draft 1: We approve this rule and concept, but would like to see language that includes an additional vet check prior to returning to competition. Also feels the horses trainer and owner should be involved. Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 843.7 Tracking #272-17 Page 11 of 22
Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/06/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 01/03/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/13/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/30/2017 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/01/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/29/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 01/05/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 12/14/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 12/22/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 10/25/2017 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/07/2017 National Hunter Committee Draft 1: The committee is in favor with the intent of this rule change but we feel the language needs some further clarification: 1. Who is responsible for reporting the collapse and ensuring the horse or pony does not compete for 24 hours? 2. What happens if a horse arrives on the competition grounds prior to the start of the competitions (i.e. schooling day) and collapses when there is no steward available? 3. Is the withdrawal period based on the start time of the class that the horse/pony is entering? Would it not be easier to withdraw for the entire competition day rather than a 24 hour period. We are concerned that somebody competing a horse/pony at the very end of the 24 hour period could just move down in the order and get around the rule. National Show Horse Draft 1: Would like to see an additional vet check prior to returning to play. Paso Fino Reining Roadster Saddle Seat Eq Draft 1: Committee approved the concept however, it was felt this should be approved on a case by case basis with the decision from the Official Veterinarian at the competition. Safety Draft 2: The Safety Committee had a similar rule in the system and has withdrawn it in favor of the Vet Committee's rule. Additionally, the Safety Committee is in favor of the edits made in Draft 2. Shetland Steward-Technical Delegate Committee USHJA Draft 1: USHJA is voting to approve this proposal, but also wanted to provide comment to indicate it suggests the Federation consider amending the language to lengthen the amount of time a horse/pony is prohibited from competing after a collapse from 24 hours to "the remainder of the competition." Although the proposal as presented strengthens the current rule with respect to horse/pony welfare, lengthening the time frame of restriction from competition would better protect the horse/pony involved. Vaulting Veterinary Draft 2: Based upon comments from other Committees, a second draft was proposed which incorporated additional considerations. Welsh Western Committee Western Dressage Draft 1: We approve of this rule; but would like to see an additional vet check prior to returning to competition. Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 843.7 Tracking #272-17 Page 12 of 22
GR1302 Tracking #041-17 Draft #2 Amended Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 12/1/2018 12/14/2017 Proposed Change GR1302 Duties [CHAPTER 13-A Responsibilities] GR1302 Duties 1. Every exhibitor, rider, driver, handler and trainer or his/her agent(s) must sign an entry blank (see GR404 and GR908.2). In the case of a rider, driver or handler under 18, his/her parent or guardian, or if not available, the trainer, must sign an entry blank on the minor s behalf. 2. In order to participate in any Federation Licensed Competition, any person who is a Professional or acts as a Trainer or Coach as defined by the Federation rules, shall comply with the Federation Safe Sport Policy, including successfully completing a criminal background check and Federation-approved Safe Sport training, in accordance with such Policy. Parents or legal guardians who are not Professionals under the Federation rules but act as Trainer or Coach on behalf of their Junior, as well as Amateurs who act as Trainer or Coach for themselves, are exempt from this rule. Proponent Details Steve Sarafin Contact Information Steve Sarafin ssarafin@bellsouth.net Rule Change Intent In an effort to further educate the Federation's coaches and trainers, this rule is being proposed to require professionals, acting as coaches and trainers, to successfully complete several important Federation components. This rule proposal will require that all professionals complete a criminal background check and Safe Sport training. Linked Rules Comments Web: Entry Requirements - Safe Sport Committee Actions Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/02/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/15/2017 American Saddlebred Draft 1: Difficult to enforce and would require certification or licensing. Would be difficult for show staff to check and would discourage shows from becoming licensed with USEF. Draft 2: The committee still believes it will be difficult to enforce and would require certification or licensing. Andalusian/Lusitano Draft 1: This rule change would discourage competitors from competing at licensed competitions and would severely limit participation of amateurs. Arabian Draft 1: The committee feels this idea is good, but would be difficult to enforce and more time is need to determine how it would be enforceable. This rule change would also limit participation from amateurs. Athletes Advisory Breeds/Disciplines Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 1302.0 Tracking #041-17 Page 13 of 22
Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 12/18/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/25/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 01/08/2018 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 01/04/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 12/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Carriage Pleasure Driving Draft 1: Agrees with the concept but feels this is an opportunity work with the affiliate to develop these programs. Committee is okay with professionals completing these requirements but the current language would severely affect amateurs. Draft 2: Committee Agrees with the concept but feels this would be difficult to monitor and enforce. Competition Management Draft 1: The committee feels this is an opportunity to have the affiliates develop these programs. Connemara Draft 1: The Connemara group does not have as many "professional" trainers as many of the larger groups, and this rule could prove to be a burden on smaller trainers. There needs to be clearer language for an amateur signing the entry blank for him/herself. Council - Admin & Finance Draft 2: Council feels that this is unenforceable in the current competition environment. Council - Intl Discipline Draft 2: Too difficult to enforce and creates complications for competition management. Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Draft 2: This rule would be difficult to enforce because there is not a plan in place to penalize or encourage those non-compliant Dressage Draft 1: We support the philosophy behind this rule change proposal. However, as written, this would be impractical and impossible to comply with at a competition. Additionally, as written, this would apply to foreign competitors who are competing as well. Driving Draft 2: The Driving Sport Committee strongly disagrees with this rule as a REQUIREMENT, but instead suggests that the Safe Sport Policy be offered as a member BENEFIT. i.e. Trainers may opt to take the training & the background check, and upon doing so would earn a star or certification for their membership. Therefore, other members could benefit from knowing their Trainer is certified under the Safe Sport Policy. Making this a requirement would be ENTIRELY too difficult to enforce & would also be a hardship on many trainers who don t operate as a professional business & simply have a few clients. DSC suggests to offer the Safe Sport Policy as a benefit rather than requirement. Endurance English Pleasure Eventing Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee agrees with the sentiment of this rule but feels that the rule, as written, presents potential issues with its administration and believes clarification regarding the administration of this rule is required, e.g. if 30 competitors arrive at a show and their entries have not specified a trainer, will the secretary be required to check a database at that time? This could be a major nightmare for the show secretary at a very busy and confusing time. If a trainer signs a form at the show office and is found not to be in compliance will the competitor be permitted to compete? Is this creating a situation where more and more trainers will refuse to sign the entries, leaving the competitors (or their parents) to sign as trainer? Friesian Draft 1: It is a good idea, but complicates paperwork, is difficult to verify and would but a finical burden on shows and competitors. This needs to be required for everyone, including parents, or none. Believes this would led to lots of parents signing vs. trainers. Governance Hackney Draft 1: Agrees with concept but this rule would be difficult to enforce. Committee believes this would discourage competitors from competing at licensed competitions Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 1302.0 Tracking #041-17 Page 14 of 22
Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/28/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 12/18/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 01/03/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/13/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/30/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/21/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/01/2017 Draft 1: Referred 12/14/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 01/02/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Jumper Draft 1: JSC would prefer to work on language from the USHJA proposed rule of GR 1302.2 (tracking 266-17). Draft 2: The JSC agrees in principle but prefers to support the USHJA's version. Morgan Draft 1: Would be difficult for show staff to verify and limit participation from amateurs. National Hunter Committee Draft 2: The committee is concerned with the enforcement of this rule as well as the validity of the current Safe Sport training in the horse show industry. We feel the horse show industry is so vastly different from other sports and warrants it's own training module. National Show Horse Draft 1: Good concept, but it would be hard to enforce and difficult for competitions to verify. Completing the background check places another finical impact on competitors. Who determines if you pass or fail the background check? Paso Fino Draft 1: The idea is good, but would be difficult to enforce at licensed competitions. In the Paso Fino division, this change would require competitors in amateur trained classes and competitors without trainers to meet these requirements not just trainers and coaches. Reining Roadster Draft 1: Too difficult to monitor and enforce. Committee felt that this rule's requirements would negatively affect membership. Saddle Seat Eq Draft 1: Concern about helmet requirement being only 4 years to be eligible to be used and who was responsible to insure the helmet fit properly. The rule as written would be very difficult to monitor. Safety Draft 1: The Committee recommends approval of this rule but notes that a system of implementation will be needed to educate the membership. Shetland Draft 1: The intent is good, but feel it would be difficult to verify and enforce at licensed competitions. USHJA Draft 1: Referred to January USHJA Board Meeting Draft 2: Prefer language in 266-17 Vaulting Welsh Draft 1: The intent of this rule is good, but not practical for the Welsh group. We do not have many professional trainers as compared to larger groups, and this may cause a financial hardship on those who sign the entry blank as such. Western Committee Draft 1: Difficult to monitor and enforce unless Trainers were licensed or certified. Western Dressage Draft 1: Too difficult to enforce. Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 1302.0 Tracking #041-17 Page 15 of 22
GR1302.2 Tracking #266-17 Draft #2 Amended Rule Change Type Effective Date Draft Received Board Action Standard 12/1/2018 1/3/2018 GR1302 Duties [CHAPTER 13-A Responsibilities] Proposed Change GR1302 Duties 1. Every exhibitor, rider, driver, handler and trainer or his/her agent(s) must sign an entry blank (see GR404 and GR908.2). In the case of a rider, driver or handler under 18, his/her parent or guardian, or if not available, the trainer, must sign an entry blank on the minor s behalf. 2. In order to participate in any Federation Licensed Competition, any Professional, as defined by the Federation rules, shall (i) comply with the Federation Safe Sport Policy, including successfully completing a criminal background check and Federation-approved Safe Sport training, in accordance with such Policy and (ii) complete a Federation-approved concussion training. (Renumber accordingly) Proponent Details USHJA Contact Information Leslie Mangan lkmangan@ushja.org Rule Change Intent In an effort to further educate the Federation's coaches and trainers, this rule is being proposed to require professionals, acting as coaches and trainers, to successfully complete several important Federation components. This rule proposal will require that all professionals complete a criminal background check and Safe Sport training. Additionally, all professionals will be required to complete a Federation-approved concussion training and a test on Equine Drugs and Medications basics. Professionals serving as coach or trainer for their minor children will be exempt from the requirements laid out in the rule. Linked Rules Comments Web: Professionals - Participation Requirements Committee Actions Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/27/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/02/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/15/2017 American Saddlebred Draft 1: Without a licensing process or certification it would be very difficult to monitor and enforce. Might encourage more competitions to not be licensed with USE. Andalusian/Lusitano Draft 1: This rule change will decrease participation at licensed competitions and severely limit amateur participation. Arabian Draft 1: The committee feels the idea is good, but would be difficult to enforce and more time is need to determine how it would be enforceable. This rule change would also limit participation from amateurs. The idea of concussion training is good, but what are the legal ramifications? These individuals should have a working knowledge of Drugs and medications. Athletes Advisory Breeds/Disciplines Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 1302.2 Tracking #266-17 Page 16 of 22
Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/09/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 10/25/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/21/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Disapproval 01/04/2018 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/04/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 12/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/07/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/14/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Disapproval 11/20/2017 Draft 1: Recommends Approval 11/28/2017 Draft 2: Recommends Approval 01/08/2018 Carriage Pleasure Driving Draft 1: Agrees with the concept but feels this is an opportunity work with the affiliate to develop these programs. Committee is okay with professionals completing these requirements but the current language would severely affect amateurs. Competition Management Draft 1: The committee believes this should go through the affiliate certification program Connemara Draft 1: The Connemara group does not have as many "professional" trainers as many of the larger groups, and this rule could prove to be a burden on smaller trainers. There needs to be clearer language for an amateur signing the entry blank for him/herself. Council - Admin & Finance Council - Intl Discipline Draft 1: Impractical to comply with at a competition. Council - Natl Breed & Discipline Draft 2: The wording for this rule is preferred over GR1302 Tracking#041-17. However, it has still not been sold as a benefit to the members and it would be difficult to enforce. Dressage Draft 1: We support the philosophy behind this rule change proposal. However, as written, this would be impractical and impossible to comply with at a competition. Additionally, as written, this would apply to foreign competitors who are competing as well. Driving Draft 1: The DSC strongly disagrees with this rule as a REQUIREMENT, but instead suggests that the Safe Sport Policy be offered as a member BENEFIT. i.e. Trainers may opt to take the training & the background check, and upon doing so would earn a star or certification for their membership. Therefore, other members could benefit from knowing their Trainer is certified under the Safe Sport Policy. Making this a requirement would be ENTIRELY too difficult to enforce & would also be a hardship on many trainers who don t operate as a professional business & simply have a few clients. DSC suggests to offer the Safe Sport Policy as a benefit rather than requirement. Endurance English Pleasure Eventing Draft 1: The Eventing Sport Committee is concerned with the implementation and administration of this rule as worded. The ESC is also concerned with the inclusion of Professionals in the list of those subject to the provisions of this rule is overreaching. Friesian Draft 1: It is a good idea, but complicates paperwork, is difficult to verify and would but a finical burden on shows and competitors. This needs to be required for everyone, including parents, or none. Governance Hackney Draft 1: Agrees with concept but this rule would be difficult to enforce. Committee believes this would discourage competitors from competing at licensed competitions Jumper Draft 1: JSC in principle supports this rule however, has concerns about the implementation. Do we have training modules developed for concussion training and Equine D&M? Tuesday, January 09, 2018 11:11 AM GR 1302.2 Tracking #266-17 Page 17 of 22